Dean Jones v. Microsoft Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DEAN JONES, CASE NO. C24-1898-KKE Plaintiff(s), ORDER MEMORIALIZING ORAL v. RULING ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant(s).

The parties contacted the Court to request a telephone conference to resolve a dispute arising from a deposition scheduled to occur today. Defendant sent Plaintiff a notice of deposition reading, in pertinent part: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the deposition testimony of Dean Jones will be 16 taken upon oral examination at the request of Defendant in the above-entitled and numbered action before a Court Reporter, Notary Public, or other officer authorized 17 to administer oaths, and will be conducted at the law offices of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000, Seattle WA 98101 on November 18 4th, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. (PST), said oral examination to be subject to continuance or adjournment from time to time or place until complete. The deposition shall be 19 recorded by audio, video, and/or stenographic means.

20 When Plaintiff arrived to begin the deposition, he objected to the video recording of the deposition, contending that he was not prepared for a video deposition.

22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(3)(A) requires that “[t]he party who notices the deposition must state in the notice the method for recording the testimony.” The Court finds that the notice of deposition adequately informs Plaintiff that the deposition could be videorecorded.

1 See, e.g., Conforto v. Mabus, No. 12cv1316–W (BLM), 2014 WL 3896079, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Aug.

2 8, 2014). If the possibility of videorecording was important to Plaintiff, he could have contacted Defendant to verify whether the deposition would be videorecorded, and he had ample time to do so. See id. Therefore, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s deposition go forward as scheduled and may be videorecorded.

6 Dated this 4th day of November, 2025.

A Kymberly K. Evanson 9 United States District Judge